I said, "By the gov't." If I come into your home, you have the right, but the gov't doesn't. If YOU have an airplane, YOU have the right, but the gov't doesn't. Customs is different because you don't necessarily have the right to cross the border. You have the right to travel, tho, and the gov't searching everyone traveling by airplane is illegal under the 4th Amendment. The airlines could set up such security and do it just fine, they aren't the gov't. But the gov't doing it is illegal under the 4th amendment.
Disallowing weapons is not a good thing. If the passengers on flight 93, as well as the other planes had been armed, they would easily have overwhelmed the terrorists. Our best security would be to encourage concealed carry of weapons onto airplanes, so the bad guys wouldn't know from where the threat to their plans would come. They would have to assume that every passenger on the airplane who is not a child has a gun. In actuality, maybe 10% would be armed, but that's a lot of people to thwart your plans if you're a terrorist.
" transport on the system is not a right."
Uh, yeah it is, at least being transported without being searched by the gov't is a right. Judge Napolitano on Fox News went into great detail about this, with what they are doing being absolutely positively illegal with respect to the 4th amendment. The gov't just can't legally do what they're doing. The AIRLINES can institute, pay for, and run a TSA-like security system, but not the gov't.
Short of prison-like strip searches, what they're trying to do is likely impossible. The old joke about "No carry on luggage and everybody flies naked" is probably the only thing that would really work, except that they'd have to use a second plane to fly the baggage in case there's a bomb in the luggage, which they will also miss. The 2nd plane should probably have a crew of 1 or 2 and ejection seats...
So, now the security theater is going to become unbearable again, and I'm going to KEEP driving where I want to go. Sold my car a couple weeks ago - 3 years and 2 months old, with 124,000 miles on the odometer because I've BEEN driving wherever I wanted to go, and there were some really long trips in there most of the way across the country that were repeated several times a year. Fortunately, I love to drive and loathe gov't intrusion, but the reason I drove, and took trains, is the TSA. Otherwise, I would have flown.
"DO ABOUT IT?" I want to hear what you think you can do about it...
We can do a whale of a lot that severely affects industry, impoverishes millions more Americans and even others around the world if we can convince them to go along with the global warming religion, and cause death and destruction on a super-wide scale. But will it even slow the warming?
Of course not. The CO2 is in the atmosphere to stay for a really long time. Getting it to come down would mean leaving our oil, gas, coal, etc. in the ground, and that's just plain impossible if humanity is to survive. We need the energy from those fossil fuels to power our vehicles. There's no nuke plant or solar farm that's going to put a viable car down the road. A "viable" car is a CHEAP car that EVERYONE that can afford a car now can afford it also. There is no such animal now. There may never be such an animal, it depends on the invention of the "magic battery." The "magic battery" is cheap and small and cheap and energy dense and cheap and environmentally rugged and cheap and lightweight and cheap. There's no magic battery now and there may never be. It may be impossible. Yet we need vehicles and we need them to move to get people and goods from where they are to where they need to be.
And we need the energy to power our society, in the form of grid electricity. That has a slim hope of being 100% solar + wind + geothermal + nuclear + tidal + etc. that doesn't use fossil fuels. Someday. In the really distant future, at a really high price. It too will create millions in poverty because of the rise in the price of electricity. What's worse for your health than smoking? Living in poverty. It will take 7 - 10 years off your life. Yeah, we can "save the planet" if we're all ready to commit suicide, but short of that, we don't have a prayer of "doing something" about CO2 in the atmosphere. Carbon taxes will only enrich governments and impoverish citizens, but we still need to move goods and people to where they need to be, so we still need vehicles, so we still need oil. As long as we're burning oil, its still going to put CO2 into the atmosphere.
So, c'mon, other than continuously whining about "doing something" about AGW, what do you think you can do about it, really? Destroy industry and enrich governments and impoverish citizens? You can do that but it won't help "global warming" a damned bit.
You rarely know someone is a rapist until they grab you. Then, if possible, you draw your weapon, reach behind you, stick the gun in his ribs and blast away. If you can get some distance between you and him, its still not likely to be far enough for a marksmanship challenge, although people _do_ miss in some amazingly simple shooting situations.
Yeah, pretty much, it dramatically lowers blood pressure pretty much immediately and unconsciousness results.
Ladies always taking a couple friends along when venturing out will solve this. Their names are Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
It has been proven over and over that citizens carrying the means of self defense greatly deters violent attack against them. The fatal flaw in this is the "defenseless victim" being present. Eliminate the defenseless victim by allowing her some effective defense. Only firearms are effective in all situations. Some a-hole hopped up on PCP won't even notice pepper spray. Tasers fail if the perpetrator is wearing heavy clothing like a parka. Only a firearm is capable of 100% effective defense.
The flaw is that the foreigners are coming for a limited number of jobs and are exploited by the Visa system that doesn't allow them to compete for wages lest they be unemployed for a couple microseconds and thus get deported.
What we do is pass the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax will increase GDP a predicted 10.5% the 1st year, and then achieve full employment the 2nd year. After that, we can then throw open the immigration to any and all who wish to come. When they get here, they 1) will plan to stay and 2) market themselves to the highest bidder.
Since jobs will be plentiful under the Fair Tax, which does not tax corporate profits and therefore makes the USA the world's biggest and best tax haven, our only problem then will be to become equally skilled with the foreigners. That shouldn't be a problem. With the USA returning to making most of the worlds' products, we should be able to employ all who want a job.
"Right there is the problem with the USA."HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE ME!!!!" "
Exactly. Its none of you're F'n business. And it's every individual's right to use as much energy has he or she can pay for.
Comparing UK to US is apples and oranges. Our transportation alone is going to require vastly more energy because the country is almost 3000 miles "wide" and 1500 miles "tall." There's lots of open areas with very sparse population. This makes things like public transportation near impossible to do economically.
As for heating an individual home, the midwest this year and many days where the HIGH temperature for the day was something like seven below zero, and that was fahrenheit. UK has something called the North Atlantic Drift that comes from the Caribbean and helps warm it.
Yeah, my own winter-time KwH is around 1700 per month right now, but this place is all-electric, too - water heating, house heating, water well pumping, electric cooking, etc. etc. Match it if you can - remember, no using natural gas, oil, etc. to heat. I don't think you can. I have about 1700 sq. ft. and here all by myself, out in the boonies. No natural gas to use, which would be far cheaper.
Hey, I love the Tesla and really want one, but $100K is $100K, and it ain't happenin' 'til the $100K is maybe $30K. That would be the "magic battery" at work.
And I do a lot of those long distance drives. I have a destination in Arizona that I frequent. I live in Virginia. I was there last month. It's about 2600 miles when you go down I-95 and hang a right at Jacksonville, then take I-10 the rest of the way. Its really weird to look at your Garmin GPS and the "next turn" is 1600 miles away at an exit onto Valencia in Tucson. But anyway, it took a leisurely 4 days to do that with about 2 - 3 fillups per day. They were about 5 minutes each. It would have taken probably an extra day to let the car sit there and charge 100% each time.
Quick recharge is the same mechanism at work as is hauling stuff. Lots of people have pickup trucks that get terrible mileage but that they drive to work and everywhere else because they sometimes have to haul stuff - boats, 4X8 sheets of plywood, etc. They don't have the money to buy 2 vehicles, something that gets great mileage but won't haul much more than a briefcase, and then something that will tow the boat. So, they buy something that will tow the boat, and drive it everywhere 'cuz its their only vehicle. I'd have to keep my Subaru WRX for the Arizona (and other places I go for the same reason as Arizona, and they're all over the US - its 3 years old, has 116,000 miles on it) trip and just drive the Tesla when I could afford to wait for a charge - or if there was a supercharger available.
And I think we'd have to convert _all_ the transportation to electricity, including the 18 wheelers and the locomotives, because once cars and light trucks went away, the economy of scale of making gasoline and diesel would go away, they'd sell probably a small fraction of the amount they do now, so the price per gallon, to pay for all the hideously expensive activities associated with refining and transportation of it would force the price per gallon of the remaining gasoline and diesel to skyrocket. $20 / gallon? Maybe. Then you need to electrify jet air travel (how? I don't think there's a solution for that), boats, trains, 18-wheelers, etc.
Oh, I think the electricity for transport from the grid is going to take a lot of buildout of the grid. I have a scenario that I calculated once and saved, see if I can find it:
I found it, but Slashdot won't let me copy it in here - it says "filter error - please use fewer "junk" characters. Dunno what they're talking about, unless it is the carets I was using for powers of 10 that I was representing. Anyway, it'd take about 2.8 trillion dollars to build 164,000 wind turbines to power all of transportation that, or about $507 billion to do that in nuclear plants in order to provide electric with no pollution. Nukes and wind give us zero pollution. Didn't try solar since it only produces on some of the days and only in daylight. Really expensive, and that didn't even try to estimate building out the grid for electrics. If you're a photographer and attempt to photograph virtually any landscape, even in the near-wilderness, there's going to be a power wire running thru your picture. I contended with this while shooting the Apache Trail just east of Phoenix last month. Wires everywhere, but it'd get markedly worse to make transportation go on electricity. I'm still for doing that, but there will be costs in both dollars and esthetics.
We're not talking about cars. We're talking about leaving the oil in the ground, and doing that requires that all of transportation be converted from petroleum fuel to electricity so it can run off the renewable fuels that can be used to make electricity.
Again, TCO doesn't matter to a guy that is only qualified by his bank to buy a car under $20K. I can go higher, but I would be crazy to attempt to buy a $100K car. Payments on a $100K car? Even at 10 years, that's really a lot of money per month. Buy a car like that, and not have any money left over to go anywhere in it. And then there's insurance on a $100K car... I'm guessing the insurance companies probably REQUIRE LoJack.
Yeah, I'd love to have a Tesla-like car myself, that would go 300 miles, and cost $30K. That would be what I need, that and being able to recharge it in 5 minutes ("Supercharger" - yeah, I'll pay the $65 or so for that - still cheap if I only have to do it on long trips) and I have even spent time drooling over a Tesla, but it ain't gonna happen at this address until those things are addressed. $30K / 5 minutes / refuel most anywhere. That's 50 years in the future, I think, if it happens at all. I'm 67 so I ain't never gonna see it.
Your Tesla. Remember when I said, "Cheap?" I meant cheap.
I did not mean that one car had to serve all functions, but that all functions must be served by an array of electric cars similar to the array of gasoline and diesel powered cars that service it now. In other words, the condition needs to exist that no one can select a car or truck or 18 wheeler or boat or locomotive or aircraft, etc. powered by gasoline that cannot also be selected and powered by electricity for roughly the same price. There is no battery available to enable this condition.
Did I say it right this time? I think you know what I meant.
"Payoffs to society" would be providing a good or service at the least cost and greatest availability. Involvement of government generally causes increased costs and less availability. That is a prime reason for private industry to be doing it.
No, that's not the magic battery we need. The magic battery we need will power the car (or diesel 18 wheeler, locomotive, ship, etc) for its normal range when using petroleum fuel, and cost the same as a vehicle that uses petroleum fuel. There is no such animal at present.
It doesn't need to power the car for the "average" needs of the "average" commuter, it needs to power the car for all the needs of all the current auto-buying public.
My Subaru WRX is insanely fast, will go over 300 miles on a tank of gas, is "rechargeable" in about 5 minutes, and cost $29K. There is no such vehicle even possible today. It would probably even be competitive if it costs maybe 1.2X or 1.3X the cost of my WRX due to the cost saving of electricity compared to gas, but the closest thing we have is the Chevy Volt, it being the only almost-reasonably-priced car that could serve to take me to Tucson and back as I just drove last month in the WRX in the time it took me to get there. I refueled in 5 minutes or so, as can the Volt. The Volt is much more expensive and much less "quick" and therefore much less "fun." Doesn't fill my wants and needs. I almost bought one once anyway, but would have kept the WRX, and couldn't afford both the Volt and the WRX. Get back to me when there's a Volt version of a Jeep Cherokee... That would be a "maybe."